Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28143 of 2019
Applicant :- Jagat Bahadur Singh And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned orders dated 13.02.2019 and 22.06.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.570 of 2019 (State vs. Jagat Bahadur Singh and Another) arising out of Case Crime No.1406 of 2018, u/s 420 and 406 I.P.C., pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the present matter is related to civil dispute as the allegations relate to commercial transaction between the parties. Further submission is that the prosecution of the applicants is bad in the eyes of law. The only remedy available to the applicants is to institute a regular civil suit for recovery of alleged dues. Several other contentions have also been raised by the applicants' counsel but all of them relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled.
The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
Perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the first informant who himself claims that he along with his father namely, Parashu Ram Rathore was doing the business of sand and cement etc. in the name of Jai Ambey Traders Firm. The allegation is that the applicants had taken supply of cement, sand and ballast from the said firm on different dates for carrying out the contractual work. Initially, the applicants had paid some advance money but later on they did not pay the dues and ultimately Rs. 13,01,180/- has fallen due upon the applicants. The allegation is that the first informant had supplied materials to the applicants from 5.11.2017 to March, 2018 but the applicants had committed forgery by not paying the due amount to opposite party no.2 and has misappropriated Rs. 13,01,180/-. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer had investigated the case and after recording the statement of the witnesses and after collecting the documentary evidence has submitted charge sheet against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The learned Magistrate after perusing the entire material on record vide order dated 13.2.2019 had taken cognizance of the case and had issued summons to the applicants for their appearance. Perusal of Annexure-5 to the affidavit would reveal that 22.6.2019 was the date fixed in the case before the C.J.M. concerned as the accused-applicants were not present in the court, therefore, bailable warrants were issued against them.
The submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A more elaborate discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The application therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 shiv